När vi litar på andra mår vi bra - DN.se: "Svenskarna litar ovanligt mycket på varandra, internationellt sett. ”I länder där var och en kan räkna med hjälp av samhället i svåra situationer känner invånarna större tillit – och de mår bättre och lever längre”, säger sociologen och forskaren Mikael Rostila."
If I understand the results of Rostila's dissertation, he has measured interpersonal trust across Europe and finds a gradient of lower and lower interpersonal trust as you go from north to south. He talks about correlations to this trust but many seem far fetched due to the multivariable type phenomena.
What I find interesting, however, is that it seems like the relation to the state would result in better interpersonal trust among people than would situation where the relation for security is the Church or family relatives. He seems to conclude that everything is going to be performed via the state for people to feel good. Very Alvaesque.
Conservatives must turn in their hypothetical graves when they hear such things. So would liberals. Now, can this really be true? We have seen the socialists becoming more unpopular around Europe lately? Could the explanation instead be that where family ties are not so strong people have to trust others?
20091125
Military or Economy?
Dick Erixon — I hjärtat rebell: "Västledare måste ta världen som den är. Och agera på ett sätt som skapar respekt, ja, varför inte lite rädsla hos diktatorerna om att de kommer att bombas imorgon."
The problem with this idea is that what seems to impress the dictators is China's economical marvel and not America's military machine. The Iraq war and now the Afghanistan situation have demonstrated that the $500bn a year juggernaut does not really deliver. What people around the globe see is that you can make money without the trouble of democracy.
Speaking about which, if Obama now chooses to go against his people and his party and scale up the Afghanistan debacle it will become clear that he is not really in charge and democracy will get a beating far surpassing whatever fright he might install in the otherwise pitiful Talibans.
As I see it right now, our Nobel Peace Prize winner have one good chance right now and that is following the gut feeling of his people.
The problem with this idea is that what seems to impress the dictators is China's economical marvel and not America's military machine. The Iraq war and now the Afghanistan situation have demonstrated that the $500bn a year juggernaut does not really deliver. What people around the globe see is that you can make money without the trouble of democracy.
Speaking about which, if Obama now chooses to go against his people and his party and scale up the Afghanistan debacle it will become clear that he is not really in charge and democracy will get a beating far surpassing whatever fright he might install in the otherwise pitiful Talibans.
As I see it right now, our Nobel Peace Prize winner have one good chance right now and that is following the gut feeling of his people.
The top priority--Jobs
”Jobb är viktigare än lön för nio av tio ungdomar” - DN.se: "Om de unga ska få in en fot på arbetsmarknaden krävs, förutom jobbskatteavdrag, sänkta arbetsgivaravgifter, lärlingsutbildningar med mera, flexiblare arbetsrätt och så kallade avstampsjobb med lägre ingångslöner."
Anders Borg once said that economically Sweden was similar to the Netherlands. This is good news because the unemployment in the Netherlands is lower than 3%. The lowest rate in EU-27. However, Sweden now has one of the highest unemployments for young people in the EU.
The report A European Paradise from 'Svenskt Näringsliv' delineates the reforms taken in the Netherlands that might have helped them along. A point might be that they did the reforms ten years ago and we are just thinking about doing things. Making changes soon might still take ten years to give results? Some of the changes in Maud Olofsson's list are not in the list of the Netherlands?
On page 34 in the report one finds the following from an article of 2005:
"From the mid-nineties, a series of labor market reforms have been carried out in the Netherlands. Below are some examples.
Lower overall taxes on labor since the end of the nineties.
A labor tax deduction was introduced in 2001 and later expanded in 2003 and 2004.
Payroll taxes were significantly reduced in 1998.
In 1998, the rules governing employee termination were terminated.
The possibilities of renewing temporary employment contracts were expanded in 1999.
The maximum time for which employees could receive benefits was shortened in 2004.
In 2002, competition between job agencies was introduced, where the agencies received funding in accordance with the extent to which their clients received employment."
In Sweden the outsideship makes the move to the job market to large for many individuals. What we might need is a gradient of job opportunities to replace the large step. It seems to me that the reforms of the Netherlands would provide such a gradient making each job closer to reach for each individual?
The problem with unemployment is of course worse now due to circumstances beyond our control but it was larger than that of the Netherlands also before the financial crisis. It would be interesting to know why Sweden now take other measures than the Netherlands to reach their goal? There seems to be a social democratic phantom influencing decisions. 'Moderaternas' congress, for example, did not dare to do changes in employment law for the risk of losing the election. Is it not the job of 'Alliansen' to explain that changes are perhaps necessary but the results can not be expected before the election.
Anders Borg once said that economically Sweden was similar to the Netherlands. This is good news because the unemployment in the Netherlands is lower than 3%. The lowest rate in EU-27. However, Sweden now has one of the highest unemployments for young people in the EU.
The report A European Paradise from 'Svenskt Näringsliv' delineates the reforms taken in the Netherlands that might have helped them along. A point might be that they did the reforms ten years ago and we are just thinking about doing things. Making changes soon might still take ten years to give results? Some of the changes in Maud Olofsson's list are not in the list of the Netherlands?
On page 34 in the report one finds the following from an article of 2005:
"From the mid-nineties, a series of labor market reforms have been carried out in the Netherlands. Below are some examples.
Lower overall taxes on labor since the end of the nineties.
A labor tax deduction was introduced in 2001 and later expanded in 2003 and 2004.
Payroll taxes were significantly reduced in 1998.
In 1998, the rules governing employee termination were terminated.
The possibilities of renewing temporary employment contracts were expanded in 1999.
The maximum time for which employees could receive benefits was shortened in 2004.
In 2002, competition between job agencies was introduced, where the agencies received funding in accordance with the extent to which their clients received employment."
In Sweden the outsideship makes the move to the job market to large for many individuals. What we might need is a gradient of job opportunities to replace the large step. It seems to me that the reforms of the Netherlands would provide such a gradient making each job closer to reach for each individual?
The problem with unemployment is of course worse now due to circumstances beyond our control but it was larger than that of the Netherlands also before the financial crisis. It would be interesting to know why Sweden now take other measures than the Netherlands to reach their goal? There seems to be a social democratic phantom influencing decisions. 'Moderaternas' congress, for example, did not dare to do changes in employment law for the risk of losing the election. Is it not the job of 'Alliansen' to explain that changes are perhaps necessary but the results can not be expected before the election.
20091124
The word "jämlikhet" is not used as the Social Democrats do by (MP) politics file on their web site?
There has been a lot of writing on the flirtation by Maria Wetterstrand to social liberals on Newsmill. This discussion on Newsmill was better than the politics file of (MP) on their web site to explain their relative position. I then browsed the politics file on their web site and found no occurrences of the word "jämlikhet" as used by the social democrats. That would be "equality". If this is true, I can understand the flirtation because I found out that "jämlikhet" is a key word in the distinction between Alliansen and the Red-Greens. Jan Björklund, for example recently pointed out on the "Landsmöte" of (FP) that it is necessary to accept different effective salary levels.
Johan Norberg speculated about the possibility for Alliansen to balance out (SD) with (MP) in the next election which might not really be possible.
What is perhaps most interesting with this find, if relevant, is that it might not be possible for (MP) to function in the Red-Green alliance because of this ideological deficit. A socialist marker. Magnus Andersson, however, brings up factors that are against societal development that then solidly places (MP) aside of Alliansen and (S) + (V) as pointed out by Birger Schlaug. However, Fredrick Federley thinks (MP) is socialistic in other ways.
More on the debate social liberal/environmentalism Marteus, Expressen
Johan Norberg speculated about the possibility for Alliansen to balance out (SD) with (MP) in the next election which might not really be possible.
What is perhaps most interesting with this find, if relevant, is that it might not be possible for (MP) to function in the Red-Green alliance because of this ideological deficit. A socialist marker. Magnus Andersson, however, brings up factors that are against societal development that then solidly places (MP) aside of Alliansen and (S) + (V) as pointed out by Birger Schlaug. However, Fredrick Federley thinks (MP) is socialistic in other ways.
More on the debate social liberal/environmentalism Marteus, Expressen
20091123
The American Presidency III?
America's broken politics Jeffrey Sachs Comment is free guardian.co.uk: "It is hard for international observers of the United States to grasp the political paralysis that grips the country, and that seriously threatens America's ability to solve its domestic problems and contribute to international problem-solving. America's governance crisis is the worst in modern history. Moreover, it is likely to worsen in the years ahead."
Sachs is a little gloomy on the status of America and I can't help compare with Sweden now when the differences in health care in various "Landsting" is noted as well as differences in various communes in education. So it turns out that when people local chose to act for themselves human variability is showing up. Is this bad? I don't think so. However to force everyone into compliance is non-biological and therefore non-optimal. In the US there is a also a lot of variation between different areas. Sachs says the US is polarised on various variables. Is it possible to talk about too much variability within a country and what could be done about this in that case?
The American press is complaining a lot on Barack Obama these days although not as much as on George W. Bush, yet. At the end of the Bush term I predicted that they will soon start yelling at Obama as well. I hope I'm wrong but Sachs seems to lean in this direction. People want him to lead but the issues are more or less stuck all around him.
Sachs have some interesting data on the polarity surrounding the AfPak issue. 60% of democrats want troop reductions whereas only 26% of republicans. I guess this could be interpreted in the direction that about half the population want to see the problem disappear. Sachs ends with concluding that the US could use the $150bn they spend on Iraq and AfPak a year for other purposes, like paying of the debt over 10 years. Carl Bildt said yesterday that we are in AfPak for the stability but Sachs claims that we cause instability by being there. The information I have seen makes me agree with Sachs on that one.
If Sach's rather pessimistic view on the situation is correct, it might mean that some introspection from the point of view of Europe is in order. Relying on an American umbrella without giving much in return would be considered foolish. The $3.7tn trade over the Atlantic is good but when it comes to security arrangements a fresh look on the problem might be preferable. Without making national foreign offices smaller, the EU is now adding 6000 persons, about 30 people per country on average, to a department of foreign affairs under Lady Catherine Ashton. I hope we will see some value coming out from this initiative. I believe we will see this happen.
The technocrats are winning out so far in Europe. On the other hand the difference is not that large with the US. They have one person elected, the president. If he becomes lame duckized, as is hinted at in Sachs article, the technocrats rule in the US as well.
Sachs is a little gloomy on the status of America and I can't help compare with Sweden now when the differences in health care in various "Landsting" is noted as well as differences in various communes in education. So it turns out that when people local chose to act for themselves human variability is showing up. Is this bad? I don't think so. However to force everyone into compliance is non-biological and therefore non-optimal. In the US there is a also a lot of variation between different areas. Sachs says the US is polarised on various variables. Is it possible to talk about too much variability within a country and what could be done about this in that case?
The American press is complaining a lot on Barack Obama these days although not as much as on George W. Bush, yet. At the end of the Bush term I predicted that they will soon start yelling at Obama as well. I hope I'm wrong but Sachs seems to lean in this direction. People want him to lead but the issues are more or less stuck all around him.
Sachs have some interesting data on the polarity surrounding the AfPak issue. 60% of democrats want troop reductions whereas only 26% of republicans. I guess this could be interpreted in the direction that about half the population want to see the problem disappear. Sachs ends with concluding that the US could use the $150bn they spend on Iraq and AfPak a year for other purposes, like paying of the debt over 10 years. Carl Bildt said yesterday that we are in AfPak for the stability but Sachs claims that we cause instability by being there. The information I have seen makes me agree with Sachs on that one.
If Sach's rather pessimistic view on the situation is correct, it might mean that some introspection from the point of view of Europe is in order. Relying on an American umbrella without giving much in return would be considered foolish. The $3.7tn trade over the Atlantic is good but when it comes to security arrangements a fresh look on the problem might be preferable. Without making national foreign offices smaller, the EU is now adding 6000 persons, about 30 people per country on average, to a department of foreign affairs under Lady Catherine Ashton. I hope we will see some value coming out from this initiative. I believe we will see this happen.
The technocrats are winning out so far in Europe. On the other hand the difference is not that large with the US. They have one person elected, the president. If he becomes lame duckized, as is hinted at in Sachs article, the technocrats rule in the US as well.
(FP)'s "landsmöte"
Per Altenberg – ett liberalare Sverige » Blog Archive » Fp tar ett steg till höger: "De flesta besluten på landsmötet som betecknas som höger, t.ex. moderniseringen av LAS, är dock i själva verket ett tecken på att Folkpartiet frigör sig från den socialdemokratiska världsbilden. Det är en bra utveckling."
There was one of Björklund's reforms that seem to be a step in the direction of the Social Democrats namely the job loss protection insurance. In Jan Björklund's speech there was no information as to the level of support that a person would receive. Helle Klein is hitting real hard because of the reforms taken by Alliansen on the loss of "A-kassa" coverage that is happening right now. Klein is bordering rude when she complains on this matter. I guess this is tactics to prevent loss of social liberals to (FP) from the social democrats.
The question is on what level it is economically reasonable to keep people after they lose a job or get sick. It is perhaps more stimulating for the reemployment to have lower compensation levels than that of the A-kassa. People will muster a higher degree of motivation to return to the job market? After all the system seems to be in trouble since we have the highest taxes in the world and still have to lower tax for creating jobs. Is it possible to lower taxes by saving on the job loss reimbursements? In this case it might help in creating more jobs and thus lower the time in orbit.
Lowering job loss reimbursements would also cause a blending of the people in the outsideship. It would not only contain the most desolute. This might have stimulating effects one job creation as well. There might also be less problems with violence in suburbs.
Birger Schlaug writes about our society as driving on the freeway in either the right or the left lane with the green so called "utvecklingssamhälle" in the bushes beside the road. There might be people that prefer using the machete to clear their way in the bush but I prefer my car on the freeway. A new outsideship according to the above might suffice for such a detour and they would not need so much money.
However, such a life will not lead to the goals provided by the life on the freeway. Most people would in all probability not fit into Schlaug's new way but would rather work than having free time, digest culture and spending time with their families which is all fine at a reasonable dose.
There was one of Björklund's reforms that seem to be a step in the direction of the Social Democrats namely the job loss protection insurance. In Jan Björklund's speech there was no information as to the level of support that a person would receive. Helle Klein is hitting real hard because of the reforms taken by Alliansen on the loss of "A-kassa" coverage that is happening right now. Klein is bordering rude when she complains on this matter. I guess this is tactics to prevent loss of social liberals to (FP) from the social democrats.
The question is on what level it is economically reasonable to keep people after they lose a job or get sick. It is perhaps more stimulating for the reemployment to have lower compensation levels than that of the A-kassa. People will muster a higher degree of motivation to return to the job market? After all the system seems to be in trouble since we have the highest taxes in the world and still have to lower tax for creating jobs. Is it possible to lower taxes by saving on the job loss reimbursements? In this case it might help in creating more jobs and thus lower the time in orbit.
Lowering job loss reimbursements would also cause a blending of the people in the outsideship. It would not only contain the most desolute. This might have stimulating effects one job creation as well. There might also be less problems with violence in suburbs.
Birger Schlaug writes about our society as driving on the freeway in either the right or the left lane with the green so called "utvecklingssamhälle" in the bushes beside the road. There might be people that prefer using the machete to clear their way in the bush but I prefer my car on the freeway. A new outsideship according to the above might suffice for such a detour and they would not need so much money.
However, such a life will not lead to the goals provided by the life on the freeway. Most people would in all probability not fit into Schlaug's new way but would rather work than having free time, digest culture and spending time with their families which is all fine at a reasonable dose.
20091121
Religious Humanism
Just wanted to remind people that might want to take a spiritual moment with an important tale from our development in history since 1543 that under the "etikett" scriptures you will find posts with a narrative of a key stone discovery.
So far there are four events: 1) the heliocentric theory by Copernicus, 1543; 2) laws of mechanics by Newton, 1687; 3) systemic blood circulation by Harvey, 1628; and 4) the gene by Mendel, 1865.
So far there are four events: 1) the heliocentric theory by Copernicus, 1543; 2) laws of mechanics by Newton, 1687; 3) systemic blood circulation by Harvey, 1628; and 4) the gene by Mendel, 1865.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)
